SS: So Where Do We Stand?
This
morning there were reports from the latest stop on the SS Phase-Out
“Bamboozlepalooza” tour. So where do our elected officials stand?
The picture here definitely seems clearer, at least from Chuck Grassley:
From the Washington Post:
“Today, the public has not found his personal account approach compelling,” Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) said in an interview late Tuesday, less than 24 hours before appearing with Bush at Kirkwood Community College here.
…Grassley, chairman of the Senate panel responsible for Social Security, said in a separate interview Tuesday afternoon: “I
don't think [Bush] has made much progress on solving the solvency issue
or what to do about personal accounts. It concerns me because as time
goes on, I was hoping [Bush] would be able to make my job
easier. We are not hearing from the grass roots that, by golly, you
guys in Congress have to work on this.” Grassley supports private Social Security accounts.
The home-state Des Moines Register noted something a little different:
“I'm gaining confidence,” Grassley said. “I'm gaining confidence because of the fact that [Bush] is working so hard.”
But
Grassley, an Iowa Republican and chairman of the influential Senate
Finance Committee, remained skeptical about whether Americans would
embrace personal investment accounts. Bush spent most of his time Wednesday promoting the controversial proposal.
But
Grassley, who controls the agenda for the committee that oversees
Social Security and supports the idea of allowing younger workers to
invest part of their payroll taxes in government-managed accounts, said
the public is “not closer in buying into personal accounts.”
The NY Times also noted this:
Representative Jim Leach, a moderate Iowa Republican who flew with Mr.
Bush back to Washington on Air Force One, said they did not discuss
Social Security on the flight. Mr. Leach is one of several Republicans
who have not taken a position on individual accounts, and he says he
has heard plenty of resistance from constituents.
So –
what's going on? It seems that the constituents (i.e. “The Iowa
Public”) are against phasing out Social Security – removing the fixed
benefit plan that we've come to count on.
However, the administration is definitely convincing Iowa's GOP Representatives to “stick to principle” and vote against the will of their constituents.
Folks, write this one down and remember it come election time in 2006.
Another note from elsewhere: pstans at the Democratic Underground reported on a town hall meeting held by Tom Latham.
The verdict: Latham is also perfectly willing to defy his constituency in order to support phase-out.
I pointed out to Latham that his web site and the pamphlet he mailed
out stated he is adamantly opposed to privatization, and I was glad to
see that. But is he really opposed to Bush's privatization plan? He
then tried to redefine privatization, and he would not say one way or
another if he supported Bush's privatization plan. Others pointed out
to him how misleading he is with his stated opposition to
privatization. I think he is very vulnerable on this issue, and he came
off to many as quite evasive and deceiving on this and other issues.
So, three congressmen leaning “phase out” against their
constituents (Grassley, Latham, Leach), two going silent (King, Nussle
– hey, isn't there another race in 2006?) and two against (Boswell,
Harkin).
Blog For Iowa 
Excellent piece, Chad! It's great to see it all in one place.
LikeLike
Actually, the comments made about Tom Latham's “privatization” interpretation were mine from another message board.
I had this letter-to-the-editor earlier this week in the Ames Tribune:
Who are Tom Latham's Friends?
Thank you President Bush and House Majority Whip Tom
“the Hammer” DeLay for marching Representative Tom
Latham back to Iowa to sell us on their plan to
privatize Social Security. As written by Matt
Neznanzki in the Ames Tribune (March 23), it was a
tough sell for Rep. Latham at the forum in Nevada.
Most of the attendees were opposed to the
privatization plan.
I thought Rep. Latham was also against diverting
payroll taxes from Social Security insurance based on
his website and the brochure he mailed out before the
meeting. Both clearly state that he is strongly
opposed to Social Security privatization.
However, he explained at the meeting that he is only
opposed if the individual gets to select their own
broker and the individual stocks or mutual funds.
Otherwise, Rep. Latham appears to be fine with
diverting payroll taxes from the Social Security
insurance program and investing the money in stocks
held in personal retirement accounts.
This deception and others prompted the last question
of the forum: “If your constituents feel one way about
the Social Security issue and Tom DeLay feels another,
who are you going to side with?” Latham answered that
he would side with his “friends.” There was a pause
as he realized that that was an ambiguous answer, so
he added, “You are my friends.” We'll see.
Let's watch this year and next to see if Rep. Latham
sides with Tom DeLay or votes in our interests on
Social Security and other issues. Let's see who his
real friends are.
LikeLike
Everyone should keep in mind that during a debate with Dave Franker last fall, Leach said he favored “partial privatization” of Social Security. Now that the fury against such a bad idea has become apparent, he suddenly is equivocating.
David Loebsack
Mt. Vernon
LikeLike
Actually, the comments made about Tom Latham's “privatization” interpretation were mine from another message board.
—
I pulled them from the linked thread at Democratic Underground.
I tried to attribute as best as I could – let me know if there is another link, and I can attribute the quote properly. (Thanks!)
LikeLike
No big deal. Nothing needs to be done.
My comments about the Latham meeting were copied to the message board at DU by someone in my meetup group. My original comments were posted on our little-used blog under “Latham's Nevada Fiasco” http://amesdfa.blogspot.com/
LikeLike